Contribution
My Lords, Amendments 430 and 434 in my name go to the practice in operation. I will introduce them by making this point. I was one of the seven people fortunate enough to be identified in the Observer a couple of weeks ago as having tabled a lot of amendments. Contrary to what the Observer—and the quite numerous hostile messages I have received by letter or email—suggested, these amendments, together with all the others I have tabled, except for two relating to the victims of industrial disease, were put forward by the Law Society of England and Wales and by the CLADD group at King’s College London. The latter, for those who were not here the other week, is a group of a distinguished psychiatrist, psychologist, social scientist and lawyer with a particular interest in this and related issues. They and the Law Society are neutral on the principle of the Bill but want to see a safe and effective Bill. Amendments 430 and 434, together with others I have tabled, are aimed at that.
Amendment 430, some will be pleased to see—others will not—is for a streamlined, non-panel basis. It would insert a new clause saying:
“This section applies where the Commissioner receives … a first declaration … a report about the first assessment … which contains a statement indicating that the coordinating professional is satisfied as to all of the matters … a report about the second assessment of the person which contains a statement indicating that the independent professional is satisfied as to all of the matters … The Commissioner must, as soon as reasonably practicable, consider the person’s eligibility to be provided with assistance”.
He or she may then
“consider the person’s eligibility personally … refer the person’s case to a person qualified to sit on the Assisted Dying Review Panel”,
or
“refer the person’s case to a multidisciplinary panel”.
In practice, this means that it would be a modified procedure where there is agreement between the co-ordinating and independent professionals. The commissioner could then consider the application alone or refer it to the panel, so it would not necessarily have to go to the panel. A full panel would be mandated only if the independent professional is not in agreement with the co-ordinating professional that the criteria are met, or if it becomes clear during the modified procedure that further evidence is needed.
Some of those who are not in favour of the Bill may be concerned that this amendment could potentially weaken the process. I remind the Committee that Dame Caroline Swift, latterly a High Court judge but formerly lead counsel in the Shipman Inquiry, has said she is afraid that safeguards on assisted dying are likely to be eroded. We have to be very careful, because Dame Caroline Swift was right at the sharp end of looking at this. That is important, as she has seen what happens with a rogue doctor. She said:
“Those safeguards may seem adequate now but they are likely to be eroded over time. As Leading Counsel to the Shipman Inquiry, I saw how this had happened with the safeguards for the issuing of cremation certificates … Over the years, the second doctor’s role became diluted, they were seldom independent of the first, rarely examined the body and the signing of the second form became little more than a ‘tick box exercise’”.
My Amendment 430 might later be at risk of leading to dilution, but I hope it is an indication that there might—in clear cases, where everyone is agreed early on—be a way of moving it on swiftly, to the advantage of someone who is really anxious to go down this course and has capacity and all the other requirements. I hope that will be seen as a positive move and not a wrecker’s move. I am surprised that no one has come to me since this was tabled and said, “That’s a good idea; we’ll stick it in the Bill”.
Amendment 434 would amend Clause 16 and is simply intended to make it clear beyond doubt that referral to the panel is mandatory wherever the independent professional is not satisfied that all the requirements are met. The Law Society believes, and I agree, that as it stands it is not necessarily mandatory, and it should be. So, I ask rhetorically, why not? Are these not both jolly good amendments?